D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: November 2023

This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-1173923, Judge Gorton granted in part Hyper’s motion for attorneys’ fees.

First, the Court ruled that the case was exceptional, finding that Lu failed to meaningfully litigate the case, which ultimately rendered his positions frivolous. More specifically, the Court observed that Lu repeatedly requested extensions – the fourth of which the Court was compelled to deny – and “failed to propound any written discovery, took no depositions and did not designate a single expert witness” and that even at the end of fact discovery “plaintiff did not know whether a single, allegedly-infringing product was sold.”

Turning to the award of attorneys’ fees itself, the Court found that it had no reason to believe the case was originally filed in bad faith, and so awarded Hyper its attorneys fees from January 3, 2022, when Lu admitted to being unable to identify any allegedly infringing products and when counsel should have known the case lacked merit.

In Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Primark U.S. Corp., No. 1:23-cv-10233, after granting a stipulation for dismissal without prejudice, Judge Burroughs observed that it remained unclear whether any of the affirmative defenses or counterclaims associated with the now-dismissed claim remained before the Court and ordered the parties to file a status report to resolve that ambiguity.